-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Hopefully this survey will help Obsidian in creating another great game for World of Darkness.
My fangs are itchy..
My fangs are itchy..
I'm STILL replaying Mount & Blade and its myriad of mods; still replaying Morrowind with a long list of mods. Played half-way through Witcher 1 and dumped it mainly because of its heavy FPS orientation (the third-person hack & slash aspect with "combo moves" was stupid, in my opinion), struggled to stay interested in Oblivion through the end of the MQ (Not ANOTHER Oblivion Gate!!!!) but HATED the heavy FPS player-oriented leanings (as opposed to more stat-based character-oriented content in the previous titles).
If you can't "play the character" as the character, then it's not really a RPG. Sadly, most recent so-called RPGs seem to rely on player reflexes and gimmicky "can't fail" mechanics that make the actual character all but meaningless. If my character is a high-level thief, with a LOT of points invested in picking locks, but my own reflexes are poor, that shouldn't make my character inept at it. If I'm really good with the controller, but I'm playing a nerdy wizard wanna-be with practically no combat experience of any sort, why should they fight like a seasoned veteran swordmaster just because of my own skills?
Make the character matter, otherwise PLEASE don't market yet another FPS game masquerading as a RPG, as seems to be so common lately. If RPGs are so popular, why can't I actually buy one anymore?
Too many companies see "big money" in a number of games which have watered themselves down for "mass appeal", without noticing that the entire gaming industry has grown by those same kinds of leaps and bounds. Now, with every company and their former employees making a "mass market" RPG, there's a REAL unfulfilled market for a true character-oriented game. Unless you have the money for heavy advertising to compete head-to-head with Bethesda, Bioware, Electronic Arts, and a host of other "big dogs" in the industry over a share of that "mass appeal" bone, grabbing a vacant niche market (and not a small niche at that) seems like a good idea to me.
If you can't "play the character" as the character, then it's not really a RPG. Sadly, most recent so-called RPGs seem to rely on player reflexes and gimmicky "can't fail" mechanics that make the actual character all but meaningless. If my character is a high-level thief, with a LOT of points invested in picking locks, but my own reflexes are poor, that shouldn't make my character inept at it. If I'm really good with the controller, but I'm playing a nerdy wizard wanna-be with practically no combat experience of any sort, why should they fight like a seasoned veteran swordmaster just because of my own skills?
Make the character matter, otherwise PLEASE don't market yet another FPS game masquerading as a RPG, as seems to be so common lately. If RPGs are so popular, why can't I actually buy one anymore?
Too many companies see "big money" in a number of games which have watered themselves down for "mass appeal", without noticing that the entire gaming industry has grown by those same kinds of leaps and bounds. Now, with every company and their former employees making a "mass market" RPG, there's a REAL unfulfilled market for a true character-oriented game. Unless you have the money for heavy advertising to compete head-to-head with Bethesda, Bioware, Electronic Arts, and a host of other "big dogs" in the industry over a share of that "mass appeal" bone, grabbing a vacant niche market (and not a small niche at that) seems like a good idea to me.
- 2
Very good survey, spent like 30 minutes. I couldn't allow myself to miss a chance to give some my personal view on it.
Important idea of this survey was a "replaybility", and reading the comments gave me a good insight. Wanna place here some piece of mine.
I will take board-game's example and transfer it into PC games:
The iconic RPG is board D&D. However, i wouldn't put it as best example of modern RPG. If i want an immersive story i would pick any of Cthulhu series or The One Ring. If i want decent adventures along with some sandbox experience my choice is FFG's Star Wars. I would go with Dark Heresy for hardcore table of numbers and highly detailed battles.
Important difference between above games and D&D is the player's interaction with world around.
D&D provides pretty straightforward idea: take your fighting style, build this style via abilities and perks, and move through your enemies. Indeed, easiest and most obvious way to achieve targets. It is the reason why sometimes I am being depressed with provided limited experience in D&D.
However, other RPGs (the ones mentioned above) provides more immersive playing experience, many classes are not for just violent playthrough. Even martial characters has perks and ideas to interact with the world according with their class related nature. For example: walking on the streets as barbarian may give an opportunity for plot progression via interaction with NPC as cruel, rude, and senseless guy non-violently. Is that an RPG experience? Yes, indeed. Board D&D has a little of it.
Unlike board games, big number of computer RPG has static world setting. This world setting doesn't evolve on his own. Variety of options for interaction between player and world is crucial point for replaybility.
I've spent a hundreds of hours with TES series because of my interaction with world around. I have played over and over again with different characters. The main quest line i finished just in my first few runs. Later, I am trying to concentrate on the side quests and world exploring. Needless to say, the more progress I have through a side line quests, the more game world around me evolves. I want to see how it evolves. Fallout series gives this opportunity (4th pretty contradictional game). The hype around Planescape is based on similar idea. Most impressive and beloved (for myself) parts of PoE are a perk/attributes system which which gives me a different options for dialogue and diminished importance of fighting.
At the end, (if i would like to concentrate on fighting type of RPG) i have TitanQ, or ToME and plenty of other roguelikes.
Also, did you mention how sandbox based games became a mainstream? I believe, F4 was trying to build something of it.
I am not D&D hater.
Important idea of this survey was a "replaybility", and reading the comments gave me a good insight. Wanna place here some piece of mine.
I will take board-game's example and transfer it into PC games:
The iconic RPG is board D&D. However, i wouldn't put it as best example of modern RPG. If i want an immersive story i would pick any of Cthulhu series or The One Ring. If i want decent adventures along with some sandbox experience my choice is FFG's Star Wars. I would go with Dark Heresy for hardcore table of numbers and highly detailed battles.
Important difference between above games and D&D is the player's interaction with world around.
D&D provides pretty straightforward idea: take your fighting style, build this style via abilities and perks, and move through your enemies. Indeed, easiest and most obvious way to achieve targets. It is the reason why sometimes I am being depressed with provided limited experience in D&D.
However, other RPGs (the ones mentioned above) provides more immersive playing experience, many classes are not for just violent playthrough. Even martial characters has perks and ideas to interact with the world according with their class related nature. For example: walking on the streets as barbarian may give an opportunity for plot progression via interaction with NPC as cruel, rude, and senseless guy non-violently. Is that an RPG experience? Yes, indeed. Board D&D has a little of it.
Unlike board games, big number of computer RPG has static world setting. This world setting doesn't evolve on his own. Variety of options for interaction between player and world is crucial point for replaybility.
I've spent a hundreds of hours with TES series because of my interaction with world around. I have played over and over again with different characters. The main quest line i finished just in my first few runs. Later, I am trying to concentrate on the side quests and world exploring. Needless to say, the more progress I have through a side line quests, the more game world around me evolves. I want to see how it evolves. Fallout series gives this opportunity (4th pretty contradictional game). The hype around Planescape is based on similar idea. Most impressive and beloved (for myself) parts of PoE are a perk/attributes system which which gives me a different options for dialogue and diminished importance of fighting.
At the end, (if i would like to concentrate on fighting type of RPG) i have TitanQ, or ToME and plenty of other roguelikes.
Also, did you mention how sandbox based games became a mainstream? I believe, F4 was trying to build something of it.
I am not D&D hater.
Last edited:
Hah, might be. I am following D&D since 3,5 ed. Read their books/manuals.You were very unlucky with GMs if that's your DnD experience.
Just put on other side of thinking: D&D doesn't encourage (mechanically in system) to be a role player.
I played and GMed only 3.5 and never played official scenarios, so my impression might really be alternative. Still, it was DnD. And in 3.5 there are so many skills, feats and other mechanic variables having impact on roleplaying and diversifying playstyles that I cannot imagine what to complain about in this respect. Moreover, these variables are quite flexible and can be easily modified (I used to GM a party in a near-future-space setting with minimum amendments to 3.5). And finally, most of the game consists of a dialogue between players and the GM so you are always free to roleplay as you wish and solve problems with either any skill/spell or just with your innate ingenuity.
Sorry for confusion, my post is pretty messed. (I will edit later)
You are right. Flexibility and tweaking of game setting does distinguish D&D from other systems. Successive interpretation is your good achievement.
Number of skills, feats, premium classes, etc is impressive. But, I didn't talk about it.
Looking forward to see the update. And anyway thanx for an opportunity to recall old good days
.
Well, I enjoyed (re)playing Skyrim, Gothic 2 and Dragon Age: Origins many times, too. It's a pity they weren't among the games.
Last edited:
The Witcher series is not an RPG? From the modern action titles listed in survey The Witcher have the most varied quest outcomes.
I agree with the tip (one of the reasons M&B was so good), but by your count they had 3 of 6:
BG2-RPG
vampire-shooter
ME2-RPG (baseline modern shooterRPG)
dishonored-not an RPG
fallout NV-shooter/exploration
PE-RPG
i had a very similar discussion with a friend about 20 years ago, i forget the game we were talking about, but i felt it wasn't an RPG and he did. he argued that an RPG was first and foremost a game that immersed you in a role. which widened the field considerably, the end result was that i became convinced that a game could be considered an RPG if it filled in the little details of the role in which you are to play in the game. this means that Alpha Centauri is a RPG due to the story elements integrated into the game. that being said i wouldn't categorize it as a RPG, as it fits neatly into the 4x genre.
i consider half life to be a better RPG than vampire, though i'd still call it a shooter, and vampire isn't really a shooter exactly (i'd call it a 1st person adventure game). system shock is a better example of a shooter with a stat system and a storyline, it fell neatly into the shooter camp and did that job quite well, the stat system help enhance the FPS aspect of the game, and the storyline was sprinkled in FPS style so it fit neatly into the game. vampire was built on a FPS engine, so it felt clunky as an RPG, and early on it was trying to shove the RPG down your throat a little too hard, which made for a strong gradient between action and story.
i prefered BG1 over BG2 due to how they threw the story at you. early on you are given a story that directs you on a time sensitive rescue mission (big bad is going to escape from prison and hurt your sister who is with him), it is at this point that you are charged with completing almost all the side quests available in the game to fund a jailbreak for your sister, instead of dealing with the authority directly (like a lawful person would), or walking from the whole thing (like an evil character). in the end you are the chosen of bhaal, instead of a spawn of bhaal who has managed to stay in the running by surviving. it is still one of the best games made though.
ME2 had a pretty big break in style from ME1, the combat was more arena style in how cover was used and set up in the places combat would happen. i'd walk into an area and see the layout and know that if i cross a certain threshold that i would have a major battle on my hands, given my first playthrough was carrying on a sniper from the first game i had to hope that the enemy didn't drop in on top of me (which happened far too often). my second playthrough i focused on powers and it was nice, third playthrough assault rifles, and other than ammo issues at times was nice. the ability to kneel and get a boost to accuracy in the first game and a lack of triggered mega battles (the enemies tended to by on map from a long distance away instead via event check points) so you could approach carefully and set up your position to keep you from getting overrun. in the second and third you just rushed in guns blazing and hoped you can shift on the fly if needed. the boost to presentation with character writing and cutscenes and such helped make the second just as good as the first, but in a different way, instead of a lesser game. the third took the changes i didn't like between 1 and 2 and ramped those changes up (not counting the ending and the large chunk of main story left out in the day 1 DLC), though it did have some nice epilogue scenes for your party members.
never played dishonored (i think i might have gotten it on a steam sale, or humble bundle, but i don't have any interest in it), so i can't comment.
fallout NV is marred by having to fill fallout's (1&2, and to a lesser degree tactics) shoes, which thanks do to fallout 3 i doubt it can do. i've tried a couple of times but it doesn't feel right, from the combat system to the economy. the combat multiplies things, so early on you are poor at stuff, and later on you are good. sure that is how it is supposed to be, but in the first 3 (including tactics) games your weapon was important, and your skill made you able to use it well. same goes for armor. in fallout 3 and NV a poor weapon in a high level character's hands is better than a good weapon in a low level character in every regard, even how the weapon operates. this makes leveling very important, finding good stuff is important too, at least at low levels when you don't find good stuff unless you meta. the economy is out of whack compared to the older games, you get too many caps, and things cost too much (best generic assault rifle in 2 was 1k, in NV it is 5.2k). you use ammo at low levels to much for how easy it is to get, and at higher levels it is too plentiful.
i haven't finished my playthrough of PE, i put it down to wait for the expansions. since then quite a bit of balancing has been done which was probably its biggest flaw when i played it. i like it, and will get back to it eventually. i have some more HOI4 and M&B:WB to do though before i jump back into it.
walking dead (telltale) isn't on the list and is quite different from most RPGs. more like a choose your own adventure. the biggest flaws with the series is the railroading that gets done to minimize meaningful paths and reduce content. i tend not to replay these, as the choices i make dictate my character, and replaying that would strip away the illusion of choice, heck sometimes the game doesn't seem to reflect choices i have made.
chroma squad is a tactical JRPG that is fun to play as it has plenty of humor mixed in. i haven't replayed this game as there isn't really any branching paths despite being able to do things differently, in that regard it is quite JRPGish. JRPGs tend to very railroadish and have a focus on a narrative they are telling you, with combat being more about min maxing what little you can adjust.
M&B is a sandbox RPG which requires you to tell your own story and use your imagination more for the story part as it focuses on the action and world shaping of your actions. mods really make a huge impact on this game, and lends itself to them quite nicely.
- 1
Very few Crpg games take approach of Gothic (1-3), those games successfully combined very intersting,
living world (voiced NPC rutine dialogs, beliveble, unforgiving, open - world) with fascinating story.
One of the pillars of first and second edition was NPC realistic beahviour.
In general (dialogs, actions) they tend to act beliveble, selfish, greedy, unforgiving and with haughtiness.
Altruism was unknown for NPCs in Gothic - besides those whom you done a favor and was also - reasonably expected from player.
I think that was one of the inspirations and sources behind Skyrims success.
Ask about Gothic series in next survey. It has many players accross the world.
living world (voiced NPC rutine dialogs, beliveble, unforgiving, open - world) with fascinating story.
One of the pillars of first and second edition was NPC realistic beahviour.
In general (dialogs, actions) they tend to act beliveble, selfish, greedy, unforgiving and with haughtiness.
Altruism was unknown for NPCs in Gothic - besides those whom you done a favor and was also - reasonably expected from player.
I think that was one of the inspirations and sources behind Skyrims success.
Ask about Gothic series in next survey. It has many players accross the world.
If I remember correctly, notes in survey hasnt said "we pick best RPGs in the world, please comment". Survey has a bunch of games with different conceptual ideas. Questions were built around replaybility, and how replaibility fits each game concept. Just my opinion.
- Jul 1, 2015
- 3.580
- 3.509
The survey is now closed and our analytics team will go through the thousands(!) of replies you all provided us! With this information we will head into the future with a greater understanding of what you, our beloved customers, think and feel in regards to RPGs! Stay awesome, all of you!
- Status